VOTER APATHY IS CREATED FROM FAILURE TO ENFORCE ELECTION LAWS AND PROVIDE A FORMAT FOR CANDIDATES FOR WHOM PEOPLE WANT TO VOTE TO REACH THE PUBLICDeclining Local Election Turnout November 26, 2013 Baltimore Sun If America is an increasingly urban nation, that may be a dangerous sign for voter turnout. While an election off year, turnout was shockingly low in some of the nation’s largest cities in November’s mayoral elections. A recent article posted by Next City, documents disappointing turnout numbers for November 5th mayoral elections:

Pittsburgh, Baltimore’s neighbor, posted a 20.5% turnout.

Atlanta posted 17.5% turnout.

Miami posted only 11.0% turnout.

San Bernardino, CA – a city of 210,000 people – posted a 7.8% turnout.

These statistics should alarm Baltimore residents. We need to keep our residents, and especially our youth engaged. Baltimore saw record low turnout in the 2011 Democratic Mayoral primary, at 23%, and saw only 45,000 total votes cast in the general election in a city of 619,500 people. As proposed by the Baltimore Sun in the 2011 opinion article, one possible way to encourage interest in mayoral elections is the adoption of an “instant runoff” election system instead of Baltimore’s traditional party primary/general election system. Such a system allows voters to rate a complete slate of candidates in order of preference, with top candidates facing a runoff election if a clear majority is not established in the initial tally. While not clearly demonstrated to improve turnout in cities which use it such as San Francisco and St. Paul, Minnesota, the system is seen as a cost-saving mechanism which raises the stakes for candidates, forcing them to fight more aggressively for each vote in cities historically dominated by one party, such as Baltimore. Regardless of any calls for changes in Baltimore’s electoral system, it is essential we all work to remind our city’s residents to exercise their franchise and remain engaged in the electoral process. With the city’s next mayoral election scheduled for 2016, and issues such as alcohol outlet density affecting the lives of city residents on a daily basis, the consequences of apathy could not be higher.

Poll Also Finds Voters Were Misinformed on Key IssuesFull report(PDF)Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF) Following the first election since the Supreme Court has struck down limits on election-related advertising, a new poll finds that 9 in 10 voters said that in the 2010 election they encountered information they believed was misleading or false, with 56% saying this occurred frequently. Fifty-four percent said that it had been more frequent than usual, while just three percent said it was less frequent than usual, according to the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, based at the University of Maryland, and Knowledge Networks. (Image Credit) Equally significant, the poll found strong evidence that voters were substantially misinformed on many of the key issues of the campaign. Such misinformation was correlated with how people voted and their exposure to various news sources. Voters' misinformation included beliefs at odds with the conclusions of government agencies, generally regarded as non-partisan, consisting of professional economists and scientists.

• Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses. • Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit. • Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse. • Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%). Other key points of misinformation among voters were: • 40% of voters believed incorrectly that the TARP legislation was initiated under Barack Obama, rather than George Bush • 31% believed it was proven true that the US Chamber of Commerce spent large amounts of money it had raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates • 54% believed that there were no tax cuts in the stimulus legislation • 86% assumed their taxes had gone up (38%) or stayed the same (48%), while only 10% were aware that their taxes had gone down since 2009 • 53% thought that the bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred only under Obama, though it was initiated under Bush Clay Ramsay, of WorldPublicOpinion.org commented, "While we do not have data to make a clear comparison to the past, this high level of misinformation and the fact that voters perceived a higher than usual level of false and misleading information, suggests that the increased flow of money into political advertising may have contributed to a higher level of misinformation." The poll also found significant differences depending how people voted. Those who voted Republican were more likely than those who voted Democratic to believe that: most economists have concluded that the health care law will increase the deficit (voted Republican 73%, voted Democratic 31%); the American economy is still getting worse (72% to 36%); the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (67% to 42%); most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (62% to 26%); and it is not clear that Obama was born within the United States (64% to 18%) On the other hand those who voted Democratic were more likely to incorrectly believe that: it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%); and Democratic legislators did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%). In most cases those who had greater levels of exposure to news sources had lower levels of misinformation. There were, however, a number of cases where greater exposure to a particular news source increased misinformation on some issues. Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (8 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican. There were cases with some other news sources as well. Daily consumers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (NPR and PBS) were higher (34 points and 25 points respectively) in believing that it was proven that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates. Daily watchers of network TV news broadcasts were 12 points higher in believing that TARP was signed into law by President Obama, and 11 points higher in believing that most Republicans oppose TARP. The poll of 848 Americans was fielded from November 6 to 15, 2010. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.4 percent. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides a laptop and ISP connection. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html. WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland and funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

As you see with this Washington Post article that again has the same 3 democratic candidates as if they are the only ones in this primary---voter apathy is driven by the fact that no one wants these candidates. Leaving Cindy Walsh for Governor of Maryland out of the election coverage is deliberate because most citizens in Maryland want this political platform. It's not that people do not want to vote----they are simply not being presented all the candidates from whom to choose and this is illegal.

Eight days away from the Md. gubernatorial primary, most voters don’t seem to care

By Jenna Johnson June 15 The election is only eight days away — and voters don’t seem to care. Turnout for the June 24 gubernatorial primary contest in Maryland is expected to be low, perhaps historically low, an echo of what happened in California, Texas and elsewhere this spring. More than half of registered voters admit they aren’t paying attention to the race, according to a recent Washington Post poll. “It’s not even on the back burner for me right now,” said Don Frisby, 61, who lives in Frederick County and had difficulty naming the candidates, let alone knowing which one he likes best. (For the record, the hopefuls are Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and Del. Heather R. Mizeur [Montgomery], all Democrats. The Republicans are Harford County Executive David R. Craig, Del. Ronald A. George (Anne Arundel), Larry Hogan and Charles Lollar.) The situation leaves many of the state’s political junkies aghast. Unlike the last few Democratic primaries, this one is competitive. Local newspapers, Twitter feeds and evening news broadcasts are filled with tales of scandal, gaffes and even an empty lectern at a televised debate. The candidates have spent millions on television ads that have become increasingly negative. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 2 to 1, so the Democratic primary winner typically becomes the state’s next governor. Maryland voters apathetic about this month's primary election Yet interest is much lower than it was during the 2010 gubernatorial race, when Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) easily won the primary and defeated former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) in the general election. Months before that primary, 61 percent of registered voters were paying attention. Two weeks ahead of this primary, the number is 47 percent. Political science professors have difficulty pinpointing exactly why interest is low, but they have some ideas: Maybe it’s because the primary was bumped up to June this year from the usual month of September, and some people care more about graduations, vacations and summer camp than democracy. Maybe it’s because Marylanders generally are satisfied with their government, or burned out on partisan politics and nasty elections. Maybe they feel like it’s a done deal, since Brown has been leading in the polls for months. “Typically for primaries, I just don’t vote,” said Mike Washkevich, 58, a Democrat from Bethesda who works in sales and marketing. “It’s too long of a political season for me. It’s too much. So I let the rest of the party decide which candidate they like, then I jump in during the general election.” Primaries require voters to do more work, as the differences between politicians from the same party often are more nuanced than the differences between Democrats and Republicans, said Michael J. Hanmer, the research director at the University of Maryland’s Center for American Politics and Citizenship. “I think it’s detrimental to democracy to have low levels of voter participation,” Hanmer said. “Whoever wins the Democratic primary should coast through the general election. So this is important.” Sonia Daniel, 25, registered to vote two days after her 18th birthday and has cast a ballot in every election since. But she’s working more than 70 hours a week at two jobs and going to school part-time. She doesn’t even know who is running. “I don’t have the time,” said Daniel, who lives in Montgomery Village. It’s not just a Maryland thing. Fewer than 24 percent of registered voters in California voted in the low-drama June 3 primary, a new low for a state where at least a third of voters usually show up. In Texas in March, fewer than 10 percent of registered Republicans and about 4 percent of Democrats voted in the primary. Fewer than 1 in 6 registered voters cast a ballot in primaries in Indiana, North Carolina and South Carolina. But there is a glimmer of hope for decent turnout in Maryland: On Thursday, the first day of early voting, 20,382 Marylanders cast ballots, the highest one-day total that the state has seen for a primary since 2010, when residents were first allowed to vote early. All of the Democratic candidates and other elected officials have been trying to get voters to the polls early. Voter turnout is nearly always lower in non-presidential elections. Participation in primaries has been spiraling downward, said Michael P. McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University who studies voting trends. In many state primaries, including Maryland, only those registered with a party are allowed to vote. That can alienate the growing number of independents, McDonald said. In low-turnout elections, those who do vote often are passionately partisan. McDonald said one of the more successful recent primaries was May 20 in Oregon, with 35.5 percent turnout. Perhaps that was because every registered voter receives a ballot in the mail, he said. And there was a burst of interest in the Republican primary in Mississippi between long-serving Sen. Thad Cochran and tea party-backed challenger Chris McDaniel. Ads were nasty, stakes were high and national groups pumped money into the contest. The June 3 vote was so close that a runoff election has been scheduled — for the same day as Maryland’s primary. “It just comes back to this: Is there an interesting election?” McDonald said. “Is it a competitive election? Do people think their vote will actually matter?” Perhaps, he suggested, even a competitive primary may be less interesting than a general-election battle. Compared with Maryland’s primary race four years ago, The Post’s poll shows, interest has declined across a broad swath of voters. Conservative voters, once more passionate, now have about the same enthusiasm as liberal and moderate voters. “I’m just not excited about any of the candidates,” said Joseph Todt, 54, a truck driver and registered Republican from Greenbelt who says he is more conservative than anyone in the field. He says he will probably vote, even if he does so grudgingly. There is no major issue or divide defining either the Democratic or Republican race. The four Republican gubernatorial hopefuls largely have focused on cutting taxes. The Democratic candidates all have presented plans for expanding pre-kindergarten classes, holding taxes steady or reducing them, and increasing the number of jobs. “There is nothing big out there that they have presented to anyone,” said Deangelo Stokes, 46, a mobile engineer from Harford County who is leaning toward voting for Brown. “No one is making any noise.” Lawmakers passed legislation in 2011 to move gubernatorial primaries to the last Tuesday in June rather than the middle of September to give election officials more time to get general election ballots to troops serving overseas. Most candidates have launched extensive get-out-the-vote efforts and are touting early voting centers that opened Thursday. Several television ads have prominently featured the primary date. But still, candidates say, they frequently encounter voters who don’t know that Election Day is coming right up. The Post poll found that voter interest has sharply declined since 2010 in the Baltimore area, O’Malley’s home turf, while it notched up slightly in Prince George’s County, home to Brown. The running mates of Gansler and Mizeur also live in the county. The largest drop-off in interest was among low-income voters. Four years ago, 62 percent were following the race. Now, it’s 40 percent. Carol Cogar, 59, is one of those voters. She raised three children on her own in Southern Maryland, working low-paying jobs. At one point, she tried to get subsidized housing but was told the wait was five to 10 years. Since 2006, Cogar has been on disability for congestive heart failure and diabetes. Each month she receives $861 from the government, which covers her mortgage and utilities, and $116 to pay for food. Each year her expenses creep up. Cogar, a registered Democrat, has stopped voting. An exception: President Obama, who she thinks has not been allowed to do everything that he promised voters like her. She has yet to be inspired by a Maryland politician. “They promise me the moon and the stars and everything in between — then they get elected and they don’t do anything,” she said. “I know I sound bitter. I probably shouldn’t be that way. But it’s because of my life experiences.”Scott Clement, Peyton Craighill and Ovetta Wiggins contributed to this report.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.